Come for the politics, stay for the snark.
by John Cole| 20 Comments
This post is in: Outrage
What a loathesome creep:
The New York Christian Coalition yesterday expressed a “deep sense of sorrow” concerning the first Gay Pride Day being observed in New Paltz today.
“When a society has degenerated to the point of celebrating an immoral lifestyle that results in sickness and premature death it
Comments are closed.
A Sign Of How Far Journalism, Politics, And Internet News Has Fallen
A new charge in a book that Bill Clinton raped Hillary Clinton to conceive Chelsea is a sad sign of just how far journalism has fallen, how politics increasingly means seeking (often via planting information or allegations) the most brutal destruction…
What’s lower than reprehensible?
I’ve been asked why I haven’t commented on the latest Hillary bilge. I saw the initial reports over the weekend, and haven’t rightfully known what to say.
SeesThroughIt
“When a society has degenerated to the point of celebrating an immoral lifestyle that results in sickness and premature death it
Ben
The worst part of the WOF (war on fags) is that by spending all of their time demonizing homos, the zealots aren’t taking care of their own business… divorces, adultery, abortion, illegitimate children, doing an atrocious job rearing their own children. When are these people going to look in the mirror? Amazing how so many of them can look past their own sins and cast stones at others. Oh, I forgot, only certain parts of the bible apply and only to certain groups.
Mike S
Ben
The bible mentions homosexuality a few times. But God set a rule in stone regarding adultery.
Obviously he was far more concerned about homosexuality.
ppgaz
” I would argue the vast majority of us would agree that marriage is between a man and a woman.”
That’s from your cited article of last year, John.
My question is, what is the basis for concluding that “the vast majority”, whatever that means, is the final authority on what marriage should be?
And even if the notion is defensible, what is the basis for concluding that the government, as opposed to, say, churches, should promote that idea?
Your article asserted that the notion is “entrenched in our society”? I won’t waste your time listing all of the bad ideas that have been accepted for that very transitory reason, and later rejected.
The American Experiment is not about yielding to the “vast majority”, is it?
To save time, the argument will eventually come down to injury. To harm. I can’t find either injury or harm in the idea that any two people who treat each other with respect, obey the law, pay their taxes, and otherwise act responsibly, are injuring anyone by living together and asking to enjoy the same fruits of familyhood that any other family would expect.
Sean P
John:
For the record, yes, you did just violate Godwin’s law, unless you really believe that opposing the rights of two people to get married is the equivilent of working said people to death under subhuman conditions.
For the record, I’m all for gay marriage (and not just the mealy mouthed civil union compromise), but I’m also for keeping things into perspective. There are plenty of modern day rulers who can be compared to Hitler without hyperbole (Mugabe, Hussein, the Sudanese regime) and expanding the list to include mere bigots only cheapens the evil of Nazism as well as its victims.
Mike
Thanks for posting the Nazi poster, John. I hope it help explains to moderates why we gay people feel like Jew’s in pre-war Germany. Everyone feels we are wrong to equate our current day with the Nazi’s, but when we hear comments like this from more and more groups, and when we see reactionary zealots gaining power and exposure, we feel in a few years we all may end up in camps… or worse. I know people say it can’t happen here, but I fear it can–unless sensible moderates speak out. Thank you, John, for not remaining silent on this issue.
John Cole
Sean P-
The guy stated gays should have to wear warning labels because they are gay.
I showed some previous incarnations of warning labels.
That is violating Godwin’s law?
Al Maviva
I’m not hot on gay marriage because I follow Burke and Hayek and Coleridge and Lippman and think there are such things as social institutions that exist, which the laws should support; and that radically altering them with a top-down litigation-driven effort would destroy those institutions and upend our way of life. I think I could live with civil unions if that’s where it stopped and that’s where my elected representatives take us.
But I am anti gay marriage, so perhaps I should change my name to Gauleiter Al? And now that I think about it, I’m strongly opposed to the Irish traveler presence that crops up in my neighborhood every summer too, so I’m clearly a short step removed from rooting for the extermination of the Gypsies. And I don’t like Babs Streisand and Al Franken… mmmmm… I mean I really hate Streisand, except for that bit she did in Meet the Fokkers. That was great. But Yentl? Please, bubbala. So I guess that makes me a Jew hater too?
Point being you shouldn’t fall into the Hitler’s Dog fallacy. Just because Hitler loved dogs and bred dogs, doesn’t mean dogs are evil. It just means an evil bastard liked dogs. I could do the same thing to the “pro” side in the gay marriage debate by pointing you towards the legal academics mapping out the gay rights litigation strategy, who are quite open about using gay marriage to destroy marriage as a social institution, along with other “oppressive” social structures, like laws and white man’s science and math. Does that tar the whole pro-gay marriage movement? I’m not sure that the better publicity given to jackasses like this Revvum makes his actions any worse than the left wing revolutionaries drafting briefs on the other side. Really – what’s worse – his campaign against a minority, or the campaign of those legal minds to subvert the social structure of choice chosen by the democratic supermajority? Apples and oranges, true: but both are pretty rotten if you ask me. I’d just as soon put it to a vote rather than let nine robed masters decide – which if you think about it really is a sort of fascist oligarchy in its own right, when those untouchable, irreversible elders stray from the lawfully enacted text (which they will have to do when they inevitably invent a constitutional right to gay marriage).
Rick
John,
You have an unusual way of appealing for greater tolerance, that’s for sure.
Cordially…
P.S. I emailed you a site suggestion, because I thought you might have “moved on” from your earlier post seeking such.
John Cole
The man suggested homnosexuals should be required by the government to wear warning labels, and the Nazi’s did in fact do that.
I am sorry the comparison troubles you. Perhaps you should contact Banhuchi to stop suggesting such things, rather than excoriating me for noticing the similarity.
Sean P
John:
I beg to differ. Mr. Banuchi said there should be warning labels on “homosexuality”,not on gays themselves. The comparison to cigarettes is indicative of his viewpoint: we put the warning labels on the cigarettes, not the smokers.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I think that’s a pretty extreme position. However, it is no — repeat not — morally equivilant to requiring gay people to wear a pink triangle while out in public.
Rick
John,
The day I excoriate you is the day I flounce away like some Andrei fella did a month ago.
I needle you because I love you. In a heteronormative kind of way.
Cordially…
Rick
Oh, John (Oh, Marsha),
Surprised to discover that you have a little “Church Lady” feature screening your comments.
I was typing a response including, in sequence, the words “hot” and “comments,” and your Intolerance-screener saw it as “hot” and “com,” and forbade posting!
Filed under Generally Stupid Outrage! Particularly since amending the sentence led to my zillionth typo. Like I needed that help.
Cordially…
John Cole
I beg to differ. Mr. Banuchi said there should be warning labels on “homosexuality”,not on gays themselves. The comparison to cigarettes is indicative of his viewpoint: we put the warning labels on the cigarettes, not the smokers.
So should we just hang around homosexuals until they are about to engage in homosexual activity (watching Queer Eye, knitting, ordering a Double Chai latte, having oral sex with your boyfriend) and then pin a pink triangle on them?
With all due respect, it is a distinction without a difference. While there may be certain sub-cultures within the gay community, homosexuals are just like us except in that they engage in sexual activities with members of the same sex. Putting a warning label on ‘homosexuality’ is the same as putting a warning label on homosexuals. If it wasn’t for the homosexual acts they engage in, they wouldn’t be homosexual, so your argument actually reinforces how odious the suggestion and underlying sentiments from this cretin really were…
Ben
Al Maviva,
How are homo’s going to “destroy marriage”? News flash: hetero’s have already destroyed marriage with the sexual revolution, no fault divorce (50% rate), abortion, illegitimate children and adultery. It is absolutely the most pathetic, brain dead argument against gay marriage. I’ll agree to a ban on gay marriage if the bill includes a ban on divorce for hetero’s. How do you like them apples?
metalgrid
Really – what’s worse – his campaign against a minority, or the campaign of those legal minds to subvert the social structure of choice chosen by the democratic supermajority? Apples and oranges, true: but both are pretty rotten if you ask me. I’d just as soon put it to a vote rather than let nine robed masters decide – which if you think about it really is a sort of fascist oligarchy in its own right, when those untouchable, irreversible elders stray from the lawfully enacted text (which they will have to do when they inevitably invent a constitutional right to gay marriage).
This is exactly the reason why we have such a thing as a constitution and a constitutional republic. One of which is to protect minorities from a (super)majority.
Interestingly, if the powers of the judiciary (were to) have remained negative – i.e. only to strike down laws, and not make new ones, Loving vs. Virginia would still have happened. Similarly, striking down the opposite sex requirement of marriage could still happen as well and is within the negative powers of the judiciary to do so.
Of course, the willingness of the majority to pass DOMA and of late an amendment specifically targeting a segment of the population perfectly illustrates the need for a negative powered judiciary and our constitution. The push for the FMA also illustrates the rather shaky legal ground that DOMA is based on.
So the simple answer to your question is: the campaign against a minority is worse. It is not only grossly ‘activist’, but it goes against the very basis of our constitutional protection against the abuse of power by majorities, and the design of the tripartite method of government by our founders.
Get yourself some historical perspective son. Because you seem to want to repeat all those mistakes people before you have made.
Sean P
John:
As I indicated before, I am not defending Mr. Banuchi’s viewpoint. For the third time, I think the guy sounds like a kook. But NOT a nazi kook. Big difference.
Let me map Mr. Banuchi’s thought process here:
A. Cigarettes take years off of the lives of smokers.
B. Our society warns people about the health hazards of smoking.
C. ACCORDING TO MR. BANUCHI, being gay takes years off of the life of the paritipant.
D. Therefore, ACCORDING TO MR. BANUCHI, our society should warn people about the health hazards of being gay.
Again, I am not endorsing this viewpoint. I think its nutty. But, does our society place identification markers on smokers? No. We run silly, Riefenstalian commericals designed to discourage kids, but smokers are not identified by the government, and are free to smoke to their lung’s content in the privacy of their own home.
If you want to attack Mr. Banuchi, attack him for proposing society get in the business of telling its citizens what choices are and are not harmful, attack him for accepting shoddy evidence at face value simply because it conforms to your own viewpoint, attack him for being a bigot and intolerant. But don’t accuse him of advocating that all gay people be rounded up into camps, unless of course he actually says that.
John Cole
Sean-
I understand what you are saying, but it doesn’t matter if the guy is too stupid to understand his own logic, or lack thereof, but my point stands. To argue that there is somehow a difference between homosexuals and homosexuality is absurd, as the one salient feature that makes homosexual;s different from heterosexuals is the sex of their partners.
Now, you may want to give Mr. Banuchi’s stupidity the benefit of the doubt, and claim that he doesn’t realize what he is saying, and that he really doesn’t want warning labels on actual people. Fine, I feel no such generosity, and that isn’t the practical application of what he is recommending.